Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Lynch Must Answer Questions and Prove She Will not be Another DNC AG

Today at 10 a.m. eastern begins the hearings to replace arguably
the most partisan Attorney General in History.
Loretta Lynch should be highly scrutinized to ensure she will not continue
the shameful practices of Eric Holder. A
number of questions that she should answer.

4. Will you adopt changes to the principles of federal
prosecution that would eliminate prosecutions based on political
considerations? The current Attorney
General, Eric Holder, has been criticized for running a Department of Justice
that is oriented toward partisan politics. Urgent action is needed to ensure
that the Department of Justice will enforce the criminal laws against lawbreakers
across the political spectrum, not just those who happen to be out of power.

Lynch has an obligation to answer questions about the
decisions made by Eric Holder on a host of issues not only to provide guidance
on how she would act as attorney general, but also because she has been a
member of Holder’s advisory committee of U.S. Attorneys. It is entirely
appropriate to ask her what advice she gave Holder on his many questionable
decisions and whether she agrees with the legal positions and actions he has taken
over the past six years. . . . .

Bias in Hiring

A devastating report by the Department of Justice
inspector general in 2013 found deep polarization, mismanagement, and
harassment of conservative employees as well as a litmus test imposed in hiring
attorneys in the Civil Rights Division — namely, experience with liberal
civil-rights organizations, which translates to experience working for the
institutional Left. In short, only ideological allies need apply. As a result,
the inspector general’s report found that the Civil Rights Division “passed
over candidates who had stellar academic credentials and litigation experience
with some of the best law firms in the country” and recommended that this
litmus test be abolished.

6. Do you agree or disagree with the Obama
Administration’s expansive view of its recess appointment powers?In NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Obama Administration
expansively interpreted the recess appointments power to allow presidential
recess appointments without Senate confirmation when the Senate was, by its own
rules, not even in recess. The administration
argued that the power provided a “safety valve” in the face of Senate
“intransigence.”But even Justices Kagan and Ginsburg, perhaps the two
most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, criticized the government’s
position and joined the Court’s opinion rejecting President Obama’s lawless
recess appointments

.

These and many more questions are important in the
hearing today. Ms. Lynch needs not only
to answer these questions but she needs to prove she will be the United States
Attorney General and not the Democrat Party Attorney General as Holder
was.